@Yoshi What he said was that we could use this distributed generation to quickly add extra energy production when supply was lagging.
It's an extremely reasonable approach, and one that so many have been calling for for years.
@cdarwin turns out his employer wasn't actually interested in cutting spending, so seeing the futility of the effort, he gave up.
If you read Citizens United, the perspective captured in this piece is completely wrong about what it actually said. And a whole lot of people are! The reporting on what the ruling actually said has been really terrible over the years, sensationalized and politicized really.
And so this article reflects a movement to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.
And that's a shame, but it needs to be called out to prevent people wasting time from tilting at windmills when there are real problems to address.
@OneEyeKing meh, the subset of his voters that think he is orange Jesus would believe it either way.
If Harris was president they would all be griping about how much better things would be if Trump had won, and probably be real annoying about conspiracy theories that stole the election from him.
But a whole lot of Trump's constituents don't actually think he's Jesus. They just thought as crappy as he is, they didn't think Harris was better.
@strypey sure, and when you talk about social networking that is a quick jump to emphasizing the need for web of trust techniques to solidify the networks 🙂
@lexinova the USA ruled this years ago...
@gatewaypundit_official Mark Kelly did not urge military sedition.
The headline is patently false
@reay Well they have been mentioning that X revealed that a lot of anti-MAGA influencers are from foreign countries.
They also say that DOGE resulted in identifying significant savings in the federal government.
I don't have a dog in the fight, but just saying that's what the other echo chamber is reporting.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)